DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 4,588,453) in view of JP’537 (JP2002-105537A), and further in view of JP’522 (JPS 61-284522).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a method of manufacturing a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet, comprising: heating a steel slab, hot rolling the heated steel slab to obtain a hot-rolled steel sheet, subjecting the hot-rolled steel sheet to cold rolling once or twice with intermediate annealing performed therebetween, subjecting the cold-rolled steel sheet to decarburization annealing, applying an annealing separator to a surface of the cold-rolled steel sheet after the decarburization annealing, and subjecting the cold-rolled steel sheet applied with the annealing separator to final annealing (Col 3, Ln 49 to Col 5, Ln 36). Shimizu discloses heating the steel slab comprises a first heating to 900-1230 ºC in a gas firing type furnace and a second heating to 1250-1380 ºC with example temperatures of 1330-1360 ºC in an induction heating furnace, wherein an oxygen concentration in an atmosphere in the second heating process is 1.0 vol% or less (Abstract; Col 2, Ln 40-61). Shimizu further discloses that the time from the end of the first heating process to the start of the second heating process is 3 minutes (i.e. 180 seconds) (Col 6, Ln 5 to Col 6, Ln 50).
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose the oxygen concentration in the first heating step. JP’537 teaches a method of making a grain-oriented steel comprising first heating to <1300 ºC in a gas furnace and a second heating to ≥1350 ºC in an induction heating furnace (Abstract; Example 2), which is analogous to the method of Shimizu. JP’537 discloses that when heating the slab to <1300 ºC in an atmosphere containing 0.01-15 vol.% oxygen in a gas furnace followed by a second heating to ≥1350 ºC in an atmosphere containing 0.01-2 vol.% oxygen in an induction heating furnace, steel sheets having good magnetic properties can be obtained (Example 2). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the slab to <1300 ºC in an atmosphere containing 0.01-15 vol.% oxygen in a gas furnace and to heat the slab ≥1350 ºC in an atmosphere containing 0.01-2 vol.% oxygen in an induction heating furnace as taught by JP’537 in the process of Shimizu in order to make a steel sheet having good magnetic properties as disclosed by JP’537. JP’537 discloses examples with first heating atmosphere containing 1 vol.% oxygen and second heating atmosphere containing 0.1-1 vol.% oxygen (Table 2, Sample No. 1-3), which meets the oxygen concentration limitation recited in claim 1.
Shimizu in view of JP’537 does not explicitly disclose that a surface of the steel slab for grain-oriented electrical steel sheet is subjected to water cooling at a cooling rate of 3.0 °C/s or higher after the second heating process and before the hot rolling as recited in claim 1. JP’522 teaches a method of making a grain oriented electrical steel that is analogous to the method disclosed by Shimizu (Abstract). JP’522 discloses that in order to improve surface property and magnetic properties of the steel sheets, a scale removal step is performed by water cooling the slab at a cooling rate of 3 ºC/s or higher after the slab heating step and before the hot rolling step (Abstract; Page 4-6). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the slab with water at a cooling rate of 3 ºC/s or higher after the slab heating and before the hot rolling as taught by JP’522 in the process of Shimizu in view of JP’537 in order to make a steel sheet having excellent surface property and magnetic properties as disclosed by JP’522.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 4,588,453) in view of JP’537 (JP2002-105537A) and JP’522 (JPS 61-284522), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP’781 (JP 2005-177781A).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu discloses that the first heating is conducted in a gas firing type furnace and the second heating is conducted in an induction heating furnace (Abstract). Shimizu in view of JP’537 and JP’522 does not explicitly disclose that the steel slab for grain-oriented electrical steel sheet is arranged so that an under surface of the steel slab for grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in the first heating process is not an under surface in the second heating process.
JP’781 teaches a method for making a grain-oriented steel sheet comprising heating the slab, hot rolling the slab, followed by cold rolling and annealing ([0013] to [0060]). JP’781 discloses that the first heating is conducted in a gas heating furnace, then the slab is turned by 90º so that the widthwise end of the slab (side surface) faces down and inserted into the induction heating furnace for a second heating process ([0021]). JP’781 further discloses that the method of heating ensures a uniform heating across the width direction ([0017]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to turn the slab by 90º after gas heating step so that the widthwise end of the slab (side surface) faces down and inserted into the induction heating furnace for a second heating process as taught by JP’781 in the process of Shimizu in view of JP’537 and JP’522 in order to heat the slab uniformly across the width direction as disclosed by JP’781. Turning the slab by 90º so that the side face faces down meets the recited limitation that an under surface of the steel slab in the first heating process is not an under surface in the second heating process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that the cited arts do not teach the recited oxygen concentration.
In response, as set forth above, JP’537 teaches the recited oxygen concentration.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOWEI SU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights